There are times when a death toll goes so high that the significance of numbers is nothing but the complete loss of their significance. No longer are numbers able to speak of the loss of the individual to a community, to a family, to a habitat. The only thing they are able to speak of is the loss of meaning, the incalculable damage done to life itself. When we hear of a human death toll – a disaster, a massacre — the number of dead hits us like a blow to our sense of individual destiny: the right we think we have to thrive, to matter. The dead are like a wave that sweeps across our consciousness, constantly overwhelming our efforts at recognition, at the distinction we humans find between ourselves and others, our environment. We are connected with others in our helpless masses, no longer as helpers or community members, but as mere victims. The numbers stand while we fall, unable to resist the magnitude, the amplitude of the loss.

The numbers of estimated animal dead in Australia cannot be compared to a human village, nor a town, nor even a nation. Instead, the numbers of estimated animal dead in Australia’s fires make up one eighth of the world’s human population today. This animal death toll doesn’t even include frogs and insects.

As humans, we work among the ruins of our own disasters to regain our personal significance. We cling on to activity: gestures of solidarity, statements about change that are as much made to feed the ego as to stake out a real commitment. We reassure ourselves that we are individuals, that we matter. In the wake of Australia’s fires, humans feeding baby koalas and wrapping them in blankets are broadcast as a signal of activity that fills the void of disaster. They speak of our ability to care, to matter, as helpers and agents for animals. Despite the great good of these activities, they do not speak of the loss and grief of animals themselves, nor of their situation as displaced individuals and families who have been devastated by Australia’s inadequate climate change policy.

The animals who have survived have lost their family members and in some cases their entire habitats or livelihoods. The best known example is the Koala, which has been decimated by the fires on Kangaroo island. These koalas had represented a sanctuary and a reserve, protected from the chlamydia that has kept other koalas from reproducing successfully. There are questions over whether a small marsupial which lives its life shielded from danger in greenery has any real shot of sustainable existence in its hollowed out home on Kangaroo island.

We humans imagine death from fire as striking these animals with explosive might, but before the fires, animals were already dying of exposure to intense heat. Birds were dropping out of trees. Animals were starving because their food supplies were drying to a crisp. The fires that have grabbed human attention have left animals homeless. Those who have survived and haven’t received medical attention are enduring great suffering from hunger and injury. The Australia fires have unearthed a world of animals who carry on their lives whether we notice or care or not.

We need to follow the story of animal lives beyond this crisis as they now evade opportunistic predators like feral cats, as livestock dead create bio-hazards for animals, as they move about and use their ingenuity to survive but often fail to make it. Animals, like humans, do what they can to survive, including sheltering together in wallaby burrows. Heroic working dogs have rescued animals from fires. The sight of injured animals, baby koalas clutching stuffed animals, should remind us that other species have their own emotional needs and communities. Everyday animal lives, not human heroism, are the ignored clues to helping animals and working alongside them. For example, it should have been clear by damage from the heat wave in Australia, and by animal behavior, that climate change disaster was already preying upon the animal population. The fear is that California “will be next.” The sovereignty of animal lives needs to be consistently observed and recognized outside of disaster scenarios. Waking up to animal sovereignty, animal pain, animal solidarity can transform the death of animals from a number into an accountability for the loss.

The rescue efforts are not going to stop when the fires start to disappear from the headlines. This article has some information on how to support the rescue efforts going on: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/australia-fires-have-killed-more-than-a-billion-animals-so-far-how-you-can-help/ However, ongoing donations to animal conservation organizations such as the World Wildlife Federation are needed indefinitely. Commitments to fight climate change and move away from animal exploitation and death are needed Right Now.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-01-14/australia-fires-killed-millions-of-animals-kangaroo-island
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/australia-fires-have-killed-more-than-a-billion-animals-so-far-how-you-can-help/

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/more-1-billion-animals-killed-australian-wildfires-n1112326

This, therefore, is not an a-historical, neutral situation. In actuality, it is dire. This changes the moral analysis from any traditional moral footing (deontological, teleological, aretaic, or casuistic). We simply do not have time nor luxury of “niceties” to engage in leisurely dialogue. This is why I just wrote my new book on responsibility–we are in a crisis, and if we don’t disengage from master signifier that revolves around my thesis of semio-capitalism – – – we push ourselves and many other species to the brink of disaster. This is not sci-fi, nor hysteria. This is cold, hard truth. Yet, so many of us continue to directly or indirectly exploit non-humans, exploit clean water, exploit the ground, and exploit other humans. This is no time for exploring a “complexity of issues” in the same way we might if we were not in crisis. We need to change our behavior now. Unfortunately, the research shows a trend toward evolutionary DE-selection for empathy, and DE-selection for deeper moral reflection. Hardly anyone outside of some university disciplines understands basic moral principles and basic moral reasoning, which is catalytic for moral subjectivism, dangerous forms of hysteria (not Zizek’s), and capacities for violence. For another group–usually the rich and fat bourgeoisie–this situation causes neuro-overload, which leads to subjective constellations of obfuscation, complacence, and bitter cynicism.

As you know, several of us are grinding away day and night to solve the problem of moral motivation– its lack–and the Reality is stark. Most humans are not motivated internally by “good” reasons. Most are motivated only when their own interests are threatened, which shifts game strategy from positive to negative, and win-lose social dynamics (that are supported by psycho-pathological discourse about capitalism). Moreover, being responsible for one’s self, or one’s kin, or one’s family is insufficient in this situation. Even Sartre came to realize in the late 50s that moral reasoning was mediated by one’s historical-social circumstance–Zizek agrees with him in their confluence of ideas about Kant’s categorical imperative. We need to find the imperative, from which we derive perfect duties. This does not fall into the either-fallacy but instead is a transcendent knowledge that requires us to act in certain ways no matter what. This is still the brilliant reverberation of Kant’s legacy. This also explains the Levinas’s reversal of Kant’s core requirement of autonomous reasoning. In this reversal, Levinas (and better explained by our mutual friend, Roget Burggraeve), autonomy (and internal moral reasoning) fails as moral motivation precisely because we live in the “age of desire” so well formulated by Foucault’s trenchant attack on Freud). This is the appeal of the Other–the radical Other–the non-human Other, that most humans choose not to see or to recognize.

This hubris is our downfall. It is bitter and disgusting. Childlike. An inversion of the reality of the self–that is, the self is empty in its very nature as conscious transcendence, yet we continuously fill it with those obscure objects of our desires (as Lacan in his genius demonstrates all too easily). When we should be emptying ourselves, instead we fill and fill and fill. This is the anthropological mistake of humanism and of the Western Enlightenment, in my view. It is an ontological problem that cannot be solved by psychotherapy, counseling, or spiritual guidance because they are human artifices that dwell on the addictive arrow of the ontic/optic. The facts are here. Don’t take my word for it. We are literally throwing ourselves over the cliff–and all other sentient beings with us–and still we try to “rationalize” (Freud), obfuscate (Jung), or lose ourselves in structural positions that are effete, and that will not offer us true praxis. More regionally, very few residents of this great state recognize that Montana is becoming the next Colorado, and that Missoula is becoming the next Madison, Wisconsin. But make no mistake – our non-human cousins, our own children, water, land, and the very air that we breathe are already being sold. In time the “university” here will be nothing more than the handmaiden of semi-capitalism– our own fear leading to our very destruction. Look at the evidence. Do the math. Then figure out who YOU really are–what YOU are doing to do about it TODAY. Again, with all due respect, there is no time for political correctness, niceties, and bourgeois etiquette.